Do you want cheaters names marked?

cooldeals wrote:I agree with the tag only being a temporary thing. This site is young and some kid making a multi when he is 14 probably shouldn't have the tag when he is 45.

This, I agree with.

+1

+2 I also agree on the timetables. You make a choice, you have to live with the consequences. Maybe it'll help those considering making a multi turn it down. Why make a multi, for when you get busted to get on peoples foe lists until the marker disappears? Hmmm, more than happy to trust them again, but don't want it linked to premium, Just a timeframe. In other words of an example: Sex Offenders can't pay to get themselves off of the list of registered Sex Offenders, Why should multis be able to buy themselves off of the list here?

aage wrote: Maybe you're right, but since we receive no handlebars from the mod I think we should get some ourselves.

I don't think this is going to happen. CC punishments occur in C&A through other means and calls to brand folks with "scarlet letters" have been repeatedly rejected (although, they are now in the "archived" section do to forum reorganization). For example, see the "scarlet letter" section regarding farmers, here.

I'm generally against all of these things. Punishments happen and people are given a chance to change their ways without being branded (permanently or temporarily) for their actions. If they keep violating the rules, the punishments get increasingly severe until they are booted from the site.

i agree with that and with the fact that it should be limited in time, 6 month sounds good ("noted" shouldn't be counted, and "warning" i'm not sure) nevertheless, if we count only real offense, there should be no such thing as the double asterisk, the player should be banned on second major offense.

oh, and this should not include anything related to forum missbehaviour, just game related.

I'd agree that it's not a permanent asterisk, especially for those issues where you weren't sure of a rule once. I think the warning and noted points were good. And this of course would only be for gameplay issues, nothing to do with deemed misuse of the forum.

patrickaa317 wrote:I'd agree that it's not a permanent asterisk, especially for those issues where you weren't sure of a rule once. I think the warning and noted points were good. And this of course would only be for gameplay issues, nothing to do with deemed misuse of the forum.

In that case, I'm all for it. 6 months sounds reasonable. I don't think warnings should count as an asterisk- I worry that tournament directors won't let players with asterisks join their tournaments, and being forced to refrain from tournaments for 6 months would suck!

I don't see shaming as an effective way of righting a wrong. Public humiliation only further hampers rehabilitation after an offense. We want these players to feel welcomed back into society to discourage further offenses, not alienated, which only makes more offenses likely.Of course, this means that offenders who aren't interested with being constructive and helpful on CC, or at least decent, will get past unnoticed and ruin games unexpectedly. But isn't that what the 3-strikes-equals-a-ban system is for? Catching offenders who, when past 3 offenses, are more likely just trolls?

Just_essence wrote:I don't see shaming as an effective way of righting a wrong. Public humiliation only further hampers rehabilitation after an offense. We want these players to feel welcomed back into society to discourage further offenses, not alienated, which only makes more offenses likely.

This is the internet. It's different because public shaming is not as drastic and isolating--compared to involuntary, facial tattoo'ing or cutting off the offender's nose. In the RL, the status, "Ex-con," stays forever, but in CC it lasts 6 months.

But we can't have success without trial-and-error, so we could push for 3 months, see how it goes, then make a more informed decision.

Just_essence wrote:I don't see shaming as an effective way of righting a wrong. Public humiliation only further hampers rehabilitation after an offense. We want these players to feel welcomed back into society to discourage further offenses, not alienated, which only makes more offenses likely.Of course, this means that offenders who aren't interested with being constructive and helpful on CC, or at least decent, will get past unnoticed and ruin games unexpectedly. But isn't that what the 3-strikes-equals-a-ban system is for? Catching offenders who, when past 3 offenses, are more likely just trolls?

It worked in the book Scarlet Letter.

rdsrds2120 wrote:What exactly would the public do with this information, were it to be implemented as such?

BMO

I guess it would help tourney directors block these cheaters from tournaments?

Last edited by nicestash on Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

rdsrds2120 wrote:What exactly would the public do with this information, were it to be implemented as such?

BMO

It would make it be public and thus less people would do it, which would make people happier, which will increase premium membership, which increases revenue. In other words, there is some great ROI on this, get it done!

rdsrds2120 wrote:What exactly would the public do with this information, were it to be implemented as such?

BMO

Realize who's a cheater and who isn't, and then respond accordingly. Let the shunning begin!

(this suggestion would increase the costs of cheating, thus strengthening the current threat deterrent against cheating).

patrickaa317 wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:What exactly would the public do with this information, were it to be implemented as such?

BMO

It would make it be public and thus less people would do it, which would make people happier, which will increase premium membership, which increases revenue. In other words, there is some great ROI on this, get it done!

Let's follow this through:

1) The current punishment for cheating is a website ban. This is arguably a far greater deterrent than what's been proposed.2) It would not make the people who have bought back any happier, and the number of people to NOT buy back would be far greater than the very few that I imagine would buy premium just so that...nothing changes for their account.3) The consequence of Item 2 is a projected profit loss, combined with the branding of of members of our site, providing a constant access to be baited, flamed, etc.